Bankai

@rayword45 these toys will sell to people that don't own a single console. Guaranteed.

It is quite clear that these are toys first... Oh and there's a game-thing they can play. Nothing about the marketing of the game suggests anything but that.

@rayword45 Except it comes with cheap Disney collectibles.

It is amazing me that people are somehow missing the point here. It's like they're pulling the usual gamer crap and assuming every game HAS to be developed for their personal tastes, and completely misunderstanding the appeal of this game: it's for decicated Disney fans, the kind that have collections of Disney products, and for children that love Disney, and it's actually cheap compared to most Disney collectibles, meaning it is a good thing for parents and collectors alike.

Actually I guess I'm not surprised. But yeah, you dont like it, good for you. Don't go pretending there is a problem with this businss model when the only problem is you don't like it.

@rayword45 or here's a spectacular idea: you just don't buy the game.

@Stuffgamer1 I never said that on-disc DLC is necessarily a good idea, but I do find that a lot of people that complain about it are the ones that don't tend to understand that if a company isn't profitable they don't get any more games.

It's about the value proposition, anyway. Capcom's on-disc DLC annoys people because it's digital and contains little measurable value. They finish the game the investment in DLC is no longer worth anything.

This Disney game is entirely different. There's real collectible value in those toys so that even when the player is done with the game, he/ she has enduring value from the toys.

So yeah, apples to oranges really.

@Stuffgamer1 there does need to be DLC in modern games.

I do take it that even the people most disappointed with Capcom right now don't want the company to actually go bankrupt, correct? You won't get many Mega Man or Street Fighter games at all if that happens.

So deal with DLC. It's karma for years of games being too cheap, costing too much to make and being hamstrung by people preferring to give the middle man all their money (second hand sales) than throwing a bone to the producers of the content. The only way to turn reasonable margin on these games now is via DLC.

@theblackdragon true that. This one is going to be a challenge to grab 'em all.

This would be a ge boost for the Vita.

I do so hope it is true.

Everyone is looking at this wrong. Who cares about the game - those there are some of the cheapest Disney collectibles money can buy.

Given how poplar this game is, this is a remarkably early time to be shutting down the servers.

EA only shuts down servers for games that have like, 10 active players left, for instance.

But then Demon's Souls suffered the same fate in Australia, so eh. Enjoy playing the game designed for multiplayer by yourself and all that.

They're collectibles. Anyone who has been collecting Disney goods for any length of time knows that you pay a premium for them.

Love when westerners assume that the only language native English speakers understand is English.

This makes me happy. Original language and subtitles for me!

@TOMBOY25 you're missing the point. Advertising by law can not mislead consumers. It doesn't matter if then if someone is stupid enough to buy the product without further research, the company is still in the wrong.

You would also be surprised how unconsciously effective advertising can be. There's a reason it has to be regulated, it's a psychological fact that its a powerful tool.

And yes, Nintendo was in the wrong here for not being accurate.

Good stuff. You Americans finally get to play the best of the three

Clever marketing response by Activision, but really, what a stupid question to put to them by the Forbes dude. That response was so predictable a journalist should have been able to write the answer before even asking the question.

Um, Junction Point either continues to work with Disney or it gets shut down. Disney acquired it.

These sales figures surprised me... But then I realised that it was released at the worst possible time, in an amongst a swarm of other AAA game releases. If the game had have been released say, tomorrow, I would think it would have performed better.

@rayword45 how the heck does this in any way whatsoever suggest this is the end of Nintendo consoles?

@Einherjar You clearly don't work in EA management.

Making wild guesses and assumptions generally blows up in a person's face. Go look at EA's financial performance.

_{I meant what I said before. please keep your comments in this thread on the topic of the game and/or the review, you've more than had your say about everything else — TBD}

@Guitardude7 The irony of someone commenting on a video game website about a waste of money is not lost on anyone halfway sane, I hope you realise.

@Eien1239 Given these are collectible miniatures, that price is more than reasonable.

I think this is a brilliant marketing play, and I can't see this being anything less than a massive hit.

I'm surprised Square Enix hasn't announced something similar, frankly.

What do you count as a dangerous animal? Snakes? Spiders? Wild Pigs? Run into them all at some point.

Perhaps it's just an education thing. It's easy to rely on a gun to protect yourself when you're allowed to own one.

@HuntheUniverse - they shoot animals. It might be legal, it might be fun, it might be justifiable. I'm not disputing that.

You do realise how many deadly animals Australia has, right? More than the US.

I've yet to have to kill one. I do a lot of hiking. Perhaps because I don't have a gun I've learned to actually live with nature rather than go around marking my territory with animal corpses.

@Jaz007

Compare gun-related crime in the states to a country that outlaws guns (say, Japan or Australia).

People are the same throughout the world. You have stupid people and violent people in Australia and Japan, just like you do in America.

The difference? Those stupid and violent people in Australia and Japan don't have guns. Problem not solved, but massively reduced.

So yes, gun ownership is the problem that the banning of guns resolves.

@CactusJackson - or you could learn how to not antagonise a bear. That way the bear doesn't have to die.

I've yet to be impaled, ripped to shreds, poisoned or eaten by a wild animal. I didn't need a gun to avoid that.

I really don't know how I can put this any easier.

I am against hunting. I am against a hunting company sponsoring a game about hunting. Even if the game content itself doesn't encourage someone to hunt, the association with a real hunting company makes the game a walking advertisement for hunting anyway.

I am not against violent games because games don't cause people to do stupid things. However, if, say, Barrett were to sponsor the next Call of Duty game (called, say, Barrett's Call of Duty), I would have a problem with that, because that's encouraging the sale of real guns.

And possessing real guns DOES encourage people to do stupid things.

See the difference here? Cabela games aren't just games. They're promotions for the sport. THAT'S the problem.

Why do you think a hunting company would sponsor a game? Because the game then acts as marketing for the hunting company.

So taking this one step further, why does a company spend money on marketing? To encourage consumers to spend money on that company.

Putting 1 and 1 together results in this 2: Cabela sponsors game to raise brand awareness for Cabela guns and stuff. No company sponsors GTA (though if Starbucks were smart, the next GTA would totally feature hot coffee). The comparison between the two games is flawed.

We've seen what happens when real gun companies sponsor video games. Medal of Honor, remember? Cabela gets away with it because it's ok to shoot animals or something.

@CactusJackson

From Cabela's own website:

"Quality Hunting, Fishing, Camping and Outdoor Gear at competitive prices."

So yes, Cabela does support hunting.

Edit - you do realise that Cabela is an actual manufacturer of hunting weapons, right? It's like Remington.

@CactusJackson - Illegal hunting is a plenty big problem throughout the world.

If people want to take up the... sport... so be it. I'm going to continue to argue against anything that promotes hunting as a legitimate/ entertaining/ beneficial activity however.

That there is my right as a bleeding heart liberal. Deal with it.

@CactusJackson I disagree.

Cabela is an actual outdoors goods company and it actively provides hunting gear to the market. Games that have the Cabela name on them are closer to the likes of FIFA Soccer in that they are in effect commercial advertisements for the sport.

There is no real-life equivalent that justifies the behaviour of Manhunt or GTA in modern society. Those games are closer to pure fantasy.

And frankly I wouldn't be surprised if games like Call of Duty either encouraged some people to join the army, or reinforced their career decision in their mind. Historically books, films, music, and watching sport on TV have inspired people to take up new hobbies or even change their careers. I see no reason to think a game can't do the same.

@moomoo Hunting is a socially sanctioned hobby/ sport, however, and killing people is not. My protest against games like this is against the actual activity. Anyone in their right mind knows that killing people is a bad thing. Too many otherwise smart people have this ridiculous idea that it's ok to shoot a bear, however, and dumb games like this one reinforce that idea.

@Jaz007 The fact that a hunting game exists is the problem.

@CactusJackson I think he just got developer and publisher mixed up. Happens a lot in this industry.

Of course, you're right. By the other guy's logic this game is also made by the same people that made Skylanders and the console version of Angry Birds. Pretty talented bunch to be able to "make" such a range of different games

Even if you're into hunting (I've already had that argument), Cabela's Dangerous Hunts is still morally bankrupt. Anything that encourages the notion that bears/ big cats/ crocodiles are animals to be feared (and thus justifying their slaughter) is so completely irresponsible that this is one of the times I wish PETA was around.

This series of games makes me want to hurt human beings. The very concept of the game is offensive.

@rjejr the original was a manga, not a movie.

@gamesake nice strawman. Go back to playing the Vita we all know you secretly love.

@cornishlee my apologies for misunderstanding you

@cornishlee if you can't afford a game, then you can't afford a game.

I would rather individuals without the money miss out on games, than for developers and publishers to bankrupt themselves making the game available to everyone. Not everyone is entitled to own a sports car, either. That doesn't mean you get to demand that sports cars start costing $0.99

And for the record games in Australia often cost as high as $100. Yes, we pay for our games too. I still don't understand people complaining about it. Reeks of entitlement, to be frank.

@Einherjar You were so close to making sense.

Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U was a development project. Mass Effect Trilogy was throwing three pre-existing games into a box. One cost more to make - guess which?

Given that the Wii U barely exists in the world, greenlighting a development project (which significantly improved the game, it must be said) is a pretty fair job by EA.

I really get sick of the "it's too expensive" folks. If $60 or so (in Australia, it's like $40 or $50 for Americans) is too much to pay for 20 (if not more) hours of entertainment (so, $3 an hour), then just give up on hobbies entirely.

Seriously, put all that money in the bank and just use it for food and other life essentials because any kind of fun is clearly too expensive for you.

It amazes me that people refuse to realise that the price: hours entertainment ratio for games is the best across all forms of entertainment (except perhaps books, depending how fast you read).

It's the most disgusting of first world problems to suggest that $50 or whatever for a game is "too expensive." Because it means the person saying it has put no thought into the hundreds of people he/ she would rather see lose their jobs than pay a fair price for dozens of hours of gameplay.

@undead_terror That's because 1) you have to play the game for an hour and 2) you have to be interested in it in the first place to be able to rate it.

Most people that aren't interested in the game won't buy it, and most people that buy it and don't like it will not play it for an hour. So all that's left are the people that somehow enjoy it, and therefore give it a high score.

Some people seem to think that this system is superior to critical reviews, but some people are nuts. The rating system on the eShop is utterly useless as a gauge for quality.

@Angelic_Lapras_King Yep. Totally agree. Koei has no right to make a profit on its games. Not when it can offer those games cheaper for the poor hard done by gamers.

@AugustusOxy I wondered how long it would be before Iwata himself came on here to comment.

Because for you to be able to support that... Opinion... You would have to be the head of one of the major game companies, and have a whole-of-market view and understanding of the industry. I don't think Hirai would visit a Nintendo fan site, so you must be Iwata.

I mean... You can support that opinion with more than "it's my opinion," right? You have got access to all the statistical data to be able to analyse and come to that conclusion.

I mean, you're not just some random dude on the Internet that thinks he knows more than career game developers, right?

I have so many questions I have for you Iwata!

Lots of people here who have not worked in game development, let alone been senior management at a developer, telling game developers about the impact piracy is having on their businesses.

Hang on a second I'll go get a couple more armchairs. Too many experts sitting in them, it's getting cramped in here.

@cornishlee No. The PS3/ Xbox 360 version of NG3 was released in Australia as a MA 15+ title - one 'level' below R 18+

@Molotov what? You cleary don't understand how aesthetics work.

@Molotov no. I am not. It looks amazing.

Wow that looks impressive

@luminalace I assume you have actual statistical proof to back up your opinions?

Because you wouldn't be one of those Internet people that have noting to do with the games industry but like to think they know more about it than the people that run these companies, right?

@taffy Just because EA isn't doing stuff with the Wii U, doesn't mean it isn't doing stuff. It published Kingdoms of Amalur (a new IP), it published Shadows of the Damned (new IP). Next year it has FUSE (new IP) and Army of Two (new IP). It has acquired heavily in the mobile market with developers like Firemint and Popcap.

EA is managing a lot of risk.

Lots of people seem to think that EA and other third parties have an obligation to make a console popular. They don't. That's Nintendo's job, and it's Nintendo's job to make the console a compelling proposition for third parties. Tecmo Koei supports the Wii U because Nintendo is supporting Tecmo Koei, guaranteed. And yet with EA, Nintendo fanboys aren't asking "why isn't Nintendo supporting EA?" Oh no. They're just throwing snide comments EA's way for not doing enough for a console that is clearly not supporting EA.

If Crytek says the Wii U is not a good value proposition, then it isn't. End of story. It has nothing to do with EA's risk profile. It's simply because EA isn't keen on bankrupting its most important development studios for the sake of a console that occupies a negligible market share.

@rayword45 no it doesn't.

I love Just Dance. Almost as much because half the gaming community throws a tantrum over its success (yes, kids, dancing is fun), as for the game itself.

Just Dance 4 is a slight step back from 3 and 2, I personally felt the other two games had better soundtracks (ie more funky older stuff for dudes like me rather than the modern R&B stuff I'm not keen on). But that's just me. The game itself is awesome.